Why People Pretend to Know More Than They Actually Do

People often appear far more confident in their opinions than their real knowledge justifies, and cognitive science offers a clear explanation for this pattern. According to research by cognitive scientist Steven Sloman, humans live with what is called the illusion of deep understanding. We believe we understand how the world works, even when our knowledge is shallow, fragmented, or borrowed from others. This happens because our thinking is not purely individual. Most of what we believe is shaped by social groups rather than direct experience or careful reasoning. We rely on experts, media, friends, and communities, and over time we mistake collective belief for personal understanding.

In everyday life this dependence on others is not only unavoidable but necessary. No one can personally verify how immigration systems work, how the economy functions, or how complex technologies are built. We survive intellectually by trusting other people. The problem begins when this trust turns into overconfidence. If everyone around us sounds certain, we absorb that certainty and feel knowledgeable ourselves, even if we could not explain the topic in detail. This creates a shared illusion where entire groups feel informed while no one truly understands the subject deeply.

Social pressure plays a crucial role in maintaining this illusion. Expressing doubt or admitting ignorance often comes with a social cost. Disagreeing with the dominant view of your group can lead to exclusion, ridicule, or loss of status. As a result, people prefer to repeat familiar opinions rather than question them. Confidence becomes a signal of belonging. Saying what others expect feels safer than saying I do not know. Over time, confidence stops being a reflection of knowledge and becomes a performance designed to protect identity and social ties.

This mechanism is especially visible in politics and public debates. People argue not only to discover the truth but to defend their sense of being right. Winning an argument strengthens personal and group identity, while losing feels like a threat to self worth. Sloman points out that when people are asked to explain their views in detail, their confidence often drops and their positions become less extreme. The act of explaining exposes the limits of understanding and breaks the illusion of certainty. However, most public discussions never reach this stage because they reward emotional conviction rather than careful explanation.

The modern media environment intensifies the problem. Online platforms allow people to surround themselves with like minded voices, reinforcing shared beliefs and filtering out opposing views. Algorithms feed users information that confirms what they already think, making alternative perspectives feel distant or irrational. This deepens the illusion that everyone reasonable agrees with us and that our understanding is complete. In reality, we may simply be insulated from disagreement.

The danger of this pattern lies in the combination of ignorance and confidence. When people strongly believe they are right without understanding why, dialogue becomes impossible and bad ideas gain power. Sloman argues that the solution is not to abandon reliance on others but to become more aware of it. Healthy communities encourage questions, demand explanations, and value consequences over slogans. Instead of asking what people believe, we should ask how things work and what happens if we are wrong.

Ultimately, pretending to know more than we do is not just arrogance but a human coping strategy. Believing that we understand the world helps us function and make decisions. Yet real intellectual maturity begins when we accept the limits of our knowledge. Admitting uncertainty does not weaken us. It creates space for learning, better judgment, and more honest relationships with others.